This is a research paper by Syed M AMIR
HUSAIN detailing the military threat Pakistan is faced with and how Pakistan can combat it
given economic and political constraints. It is also argued that the small but assertive
group of people who are trying to rally support to 'tie down' the Pakistani military
establishment are doing so at great risk to the country.

Introduction

In the last decade, not many positive changes have occurred for the Pakistan military
vis-a-vis equipment acquisitions. For the first time we are faced with a situation in
which not one, but all possible parties from which we can acquire weapon systems of
choice, have decided not to do business with us. In most instances, such as those of the
French company Dassault and the Russian bureau Sukhoi, this is because the same arms
dealers have negotiated contracts with our neighbour and military rival in the east. These
contracts will undoubtedly suffer should Pakistan be supplied weaponry by the same
parties. The question is how can Pakistan combat the threat in the east, and possibly
other threats that could plausibly arise in the next two decades? The answer to this
question can be given in many ways; defence acquisitions, diplomacy, changing political
alignment etc. are all possible solutions. For instance, one 'solution' could be for
Pakistan to unilaterally sign the NPT and open its sensitive nuclear sites for IAEA
inspectors. In essence this implies a complete surrender before the powers that be in an
effort to obtain guarantees and assurances of protection from them. As morally bankrupt
and disloyal to the country as such a suggestion may sound it has unfortunately been made
by some 'Pakistanis' in the past. My concern in this paper is to demonstrate that such
advice is not only ridiculous, but will destroy the morale of the Pakistani nation by
leading to another 1971- like situation. Additionally, this paper will analyze the major
threats Pakistan is faced with and will hopefully demonstrate how, given Pakistan's
financial and other constraints, we can maintain a credible defence and perhaps a
comfortable edge over potential aggressors.

History exposes flawed logic

In the 50's Pakistan chose to ally itself with the Western Bloc by signing the Baghdad
pact. At the time, Liaquat Ali Khan's visit to the United States was still fresh in the
memories of most Pakistanis. The cruelty that accompanied Stalin's rule in the USSR was
also not far in the past, making an alliance with the Soviet Union a hard sell to the
Pakistani people. Also, perhaps, the inherent conflict between an Islamic and Atheist
society caused Pakistan to be more naturally inclined toward the Christian west. Though
these are far from a complete list of reasons for Pakistan's eventual decision, which
unfortunately includes more than a few instances of our leaders selling out to capitalist
lures, yet the complex background of this alignment is not our primary concern. It would
serve the reader well to refer to a text such as Agha Shahi's 'Pakistan's Foreign Policy'
[1] for further investigation into Pakistan's alignment with the United States-led Western
coalition.

Pakistan, though enthusiastic about its new alliance with the US, saw itself as a
potential target for Soviet assisted aggression. Given a Soviet ally and sworn enemy many
times its size in the east, Pakistan requested its new American friends for military
equipment that would guarantee peace in the region and ensure Pakistan's security. A list
of the most important component of that requirement was submitted by the Pakistan Air
Force on March 1, 1954. The requirement[2] was as follows:

Viewing this requirement in the context of a likely war scenario with India, which had
unlimited access to the latest Soviet weaponry, it does not appear very unreasonable.
Pakistan had the unenviable task of defending two wings of the country separated by
thousands of miles, and also an extensive coastline. As against this request, Pakistan was
given a mere 112 combat aircraft along with 50 non-combat planes, giving a total of only
162. This was a gross under-arming of the PAF. Though Pakistan did not create a diplomatic
rumpus over this insult, a decade later in 1965, the US proved that not only was it
unwilling to release quantities of arms to ensure peace, it was also an incredibly
unreliable supplier in times of war. An embargo was imposed on Pakistan during the war.
Russia on the other hand was so quick in re-arming India that the squadron of Mig-21s
destroyed at Pathankot[3] was replaced either during, or immediately after the 1965 war.
Though the war was over in a matter of a few weeks, the embargo lasted over a decade and
even Indian defence analysts unanimously agree that the PAF's starved squadrons were
unable to change the course of the 1971 war due to lack of equipment[2].

More recent examples of
American indifference to our strategic situation are the Pressler Amendment, which singles
out and victimizes Pakistan. This amendment has also resulted in what can only be called
the theft of $658 million of Pakistan's foreign currency that was paid for the release of
28 F-16 aircraft from the US.

We are confronted with an
enemy five times larger than ourselves, and are faced with multi-dimensional threats from
the east, south and in a limited fashion, even from Afghanistan in the west. In light of
this, the pointed US policy of not only holding back on deliveries of military equipment
Pakistan has paid for, but also pressurizing other nations such as France, Sweden and
China to desist from dealing with Pakistan should only underline the US negative role
vis-a-vis Pakistan more clearly.

Many readers would perhaps question my assertions that the US has not
helped Pakistan in building a credible defence by claiming that the US is not responsible
for the achievement of our strategic objectives. Yes, this is true and exactly my point.
The US, nor any other nation is responsible for the defence of Pakistan. Not only this,
but other nations, including the US, India and Israel will even go out of their way to
harm our interests because we have conflicting policies and mutually irreconcilable goals.
Thus by asking our military to stand down and declare a unilateral unconditional 'peace',
certain elements are not only refusing to learn from history but are also creating
confusion within Pakistan and are unknowingly or otherwise, serving the interests of those
by whom we are threatened. Peace will not be won if Pakistan disarms, we will only be
bullied further and lose what semblance of respectability we can lay claim to. This is too
high a price to pay and certainly a hodge-podge of self styled 'peace' lovers do not have
any right to ask the Pakistani people to pay such a cost. Neither do they have any right
to undermine our defence by lobbying with questionable elements within the Pakistani
establishment.

The Military Threat

Pakistan is situated at the intersection of three geo-political regions, and
consequently, in extremely unstable surroundings. There is no questioning the historical
truism that a credible defence ensures stability. There is no alternative to being able to
defend yourself - not a strong industrial economy, or very high literacy rates. These are
extremely important areas that should not take a back seat to other equally important
areas such as defence, but the opposite should also hold. Of those who say that in the
next century economic power will be the most potent weapon it could be asked, why is it
that the US continues to maintain an army of 2 million and a nuclear arsenal large enough
to blow up the earth several times over[4] if all it requires is a strong economy? Why is
it that despite Japan having a trade balance in its favour of billions of US dollars[5],
it still has to give in to the arm twisting of its 'junior economic partner'? The answer
is that the power of nations is based on one key resource, their militaries, and all other
manifestations of national power are derived from this most fundamental one.

To our east lies India, a country with 7 times our population, nearly 4 times our land
mass and a military almost 3 times the size of ours. In addition, it has fought 4 wars
with us, one of which still rages on in the highest battlefield of the world - Siachen. It
is a demonstrated nuclear power with publicly declared designs of globally projecting its
power - be it through a blue water fleet based around aircraft carriers or through ICBMs
such as Surya, with a range of 14,000km. Perhaps the reader does not need to be reminded
that it was this same India which was responsible for fuelling Bengali dissent and arming
Mukti Bahini terrorists. Through these acts of subversion, it contributed to the break up
of Pakistan. Despite India's more than significant links with international terrorism
(Kashmir,

Sikkim, Sri Lanka, Sindh and Punjab), the west views India as a market second only to
China and is thus willing to pay almost any price to remain on friendly terms with it[6].

Since it is beyond the scope of this paper to concentrate on every aspect of the Indian
threat, which includes intelligence activities, subversion, terrorism, propaganda and a
conventional tactical threat from the Indian army, I will instead focus on Indian
strategic weaponry to highlight the multi-dimensional nature of the Indian threat.

Indian Air Force

The recent Gulf War has shown that the outcome of any future conflict will rest heavily
on control of the skies and the ability to deny the enemy of the same. The Indian Air
Force (IAF) is the 4th largest in the world and growing rapidly. It justifies its size by
pointing to the Chinese PLAAF (Peoples Liberation Army Air Force). This is an old ploy to
avoid being chastised by other nations on what is really a build-up to ensure regional
hegemony. Indeed, in the 1962 Indo-China conflict, India had assured her Canadian and US
allies that 'donated' military equipment would only be used against Communist China. It
took her only 3 years to do an about-turn on this undertaking by using the same equipment
against Pakistan during the 1965 war over Kashmir.

The Indian Air Force consists of nearly 1000 aircraft. Of these, nearly 770 are front
line fighters whereas 140 are second line fighters and combat capable trainers[2]. Among
its ranks the IAF contains 40 Mirage 2000-5 aircraft, 40 SU-30MKI aircraft[7], 93 Mig-29
interceptors and 88 Anglo-French Jaguar deep-strike attack aircraft. Especially with the
recent acquisition of the SU-30MKIs, the IAF has at least on paper, tremendously improved
its qualitative standing. With the force listed above, the IAF is capable of using the
latest 'smart' weaponry, stand-off weapons, extremely long range air-to-air missiles such
as the AA-10 Alamo[8] and countless other lethal stores. It is also capable of delivering
NBC (Nuclear Biological or Chemical) weapons deep inside Pakistani territory, though this
is a role for which it will most likely not be used given its long-range missile holdings.

Qualitative enhancements in IAF aircraft include 'BVR' or Beyond Visual Range
capability. This allows a fighter pilot to track, lock and destroy a target while it is
far away. The IAF has recently acquired AA-10 Alamo missiles which will allow such attacks
to be made against Pakistani aircraft at a range of more than 100km. This greatly reduces
the chances of aerial combat coming down to dogfights, where pilot's skill is the deciding
factor and an area in which the Pakistan Air Force undeniably has the qualitative edge.
All SU-30MKIs and Mig-29s have BVR capability whereas currently no aircraft in the PAF
inventory does. In addition, the longest-range air-to-air missiles in the Pakistan Air
Force is the AIM-7 Sparrow which has barely 1/3rd the range of an Alamo[9].

Clearly, with only 32 F-16 aircraft and a combat strength of a little over 400 fighter
aircraft, the PAF is again facing a 1971 like situation of being grossly under-armed. The
PAF does have an edge in that it is able to fly most aircraft in the Indian inventory due
to its alliances with many Muslim Air Forces which possess Russian and French aircraft.
However, defence planners should not count on superior PAF pilot skill to overwhelm an air
force two and a half times PAF's size. The war of September 1965 can be cited as an
example when this actually happened, but it is hardly prudent to plan for the future based
on 34-year-old laurels.

Indian Missile Forces

In the development and deployment of missiles, with Russian and French assistance,
India has made tremendous headway. It has the demonstrated capability to launch satellites
into orbit[10] and is thus de-facto, in possession of a potential ICBM with a range of
greater than 15,000km. Though these designs are, and should be, alarming for all countries
in the region, for Pakistan the Prithvi and Agni missile programs present a greater
danger. Prithvi has been labeled to be Pakistan specific by several Pakistani leaders[11].
It is an MRBM with a range of 300km and a CEP (circular error probability) of 250m. It is
capable of delivering an NBC or conventional warhead of up to 500kg. This missile allows
India to target Pakistan's capital city and most of the defence establishments in close
proximity thereof. Last year, a minor crisis was sparked when news of Prithvi's deployment
on the Pakistani border was leaked in the US press. Recently, the Indian Army has deployed
up to 38 Prithvi missiles and is yet to receive an additional batch of 62 missiles against
its order of 100 missiles[12]. Once this order is met, the Indian Air Force will deploy
additional missiles and a navalised version of the Prithvi is rumoured to be in
development. It is disturbing to imagine what India intends to accomplish with such a
large force of nuclear capable SSMs.

Given Pakistan's lack of strategic depth, it is reported[13] that in the event of an
Indian missile strike, Pakistan would have but 3 minutes worth of warning time. Clearly
this is much less time than the 15 minutes PADS (Pakistan Air Defence System) provides in
case of an attack by enemy aircraft[14]. The short time of missiles to target implies that
fixed assets such as air bases, nuclear installations and weapon factories whose defence
has been modeled on the assumption of a conventional air attack, will have to be protected
with the missile threat in mind. Given the fact that there are a total of 10 PAF forward
air bases and 9 additional combat capable air bases versus 100 such bases in India, it
follows that to keep the enemy on the defensive, the Pakistan armed forces require similar
or better strike capability against such targets. Also, early warning for Pakistan is
becoming more and more crucial. Of course, the ideal solution of obtaining a number of
AWACS (E3-A Sentry) aircraft from the US has been ruled out due to immediate hindrances
such as the Pressler amendment as well as the US's long term untrustworthiness as a
supplier of military equipment. There are still however, a few options available to the
Pakistani military which are highlighted in the following sections of this paper.